Dunno if the simple use of a Moog really makes one drone at all. I'd contend that what makes good drone is getting lost in the nihilism of pure sound waves that almost gasp for the next note to come and relieve the tension. Not sunshine Moog pop - but that's probably just me.

Have to say, slotting 'Drone' beside shoegaze (very little crossover there) and dream pop (even less) is a pretty grim misappropriation of the term. 'Sake Black Sabbath are closer to drone if those are how loose the criteria are going to be. Get a bit of Skullflower down yer necks - drone should have you gazing into oblivion, not down at your shoes.

[quote:d6c1d294f9="The Fires of Hell"]Have to say, slotting 'Drone' beside shoegaze (very little crossover there) and dream pop (even less) is a pretty grim misappropriation of the term. 'Sake Black Sabbath are closer to drone if those are how loose the criteria are going to be. Get a bit of Skullflower down yer necks - drone should have you gazing into oblivion, not down at your shoes.[/quote:d6c1d294f9]

I'm with you on this one. I can understand why people might see a similarity, but for my taste, there's nothing linking Sunn O))) and Slowdive, other than the fact that they are humans who play music.

fuck sake. Another innocent posting descends into pedantic schmindie oneupmanship and 'no you're wrong there'-isms. I think to the uninitiated in 'dream pop' etc, the comparisons between the bands/tunes mentioned is obvious. Unfortunately most of us haven't got the new issue of wire where it explains this year's newly revised classification schemes for guitar music.

[quote:e332563833="Steven Dedalus"][quote:e332563833="The Fires of Hell"]Have to say, slotting 'Drone' beside shoegaze (very little crossover there) and dream pop (even less) is a pretty grim misappropriation of the term. 'Sake Black Sabbath are closer to drone if those are how loose the criteria are going to be. Get a bit of Skullflower down yer necks - drone should have you gazing into oblivion, not down at your shoes.[/quote:e332563833]

I'm with you on this one. I can understand why people might see a similarity, but for my taste, there's nothing linking Sunn O))) and Slowdive, other than the fact that they are humans who play music.

Although obviously Jesu is the middle ground (for those that care).[/quote:e332563833]

I am on this too. Agree completely, seems that these days a good lot of indie bands and people from the indie scene are starting to get interested in drone/sludge with the result that bands that have NOTHING to do with either are labelled as such.

Anyway, if we are talking of proper drone, i will add to the list of 'must listen' bands Khanate (even though they are on the more doom side of things) and Teeth of Lions Rule The Devine.

Well, I don't think it matters all that much what a band plays if you like it. However, it can be useful to clearly define what a band plays for a whole series of reasons.

Anyways, Russian Circles i'd say are more on the post-rock side of things, even though they have metal influences. I say their gig with These Arms Are Snakes and ASIWYFA at the Black Box is a must, definitively sounds like it's going to be deadly.

It's just that some things are patently daft - like calling Oppenheimer a drone band - that it bears pointing out.

Otherwise we get in the same kind of situation that allows NME et al to herald what they call new &quot;thrash&quot; bands. And we all know that's neither big, nor clever, whether you care for labels or not.

If I heard people going on about the latest cool new 'drone' bands that really just sound slow and introspective, I think a case would have to be made for GUNISHMENT.

That is why I say that labelling the music a band does sometimes is vital for understanding. If you clear up what a band plays you will avoid stuff like Oppenheimer being called drone or many other cases.

It is horrible having to define music and I will agree on that. But if you make boundaries clear, it avoids such misunderstandings.

[quote:eec6ff4fee="Chi-Lite"]
what's it to you if somebody thinks Oppenheimer are drone?[/quote:eec6ff4fee]

It is a lot, mainly because you result having a load of bands that are labelled as 'drone' but have nothing to do with drone. Therefore the bands that do play drone are completely ignored (they already struggle to get some recognition these).
Secondly, there is the situation about NME or Kerrang! just writing a whole load of crap when calling a band metalcore or thrash.

Magic arguments. So I thought that the drone is the constant(ish) note that sure enough, 'cause the other stuff around it is changing pitch, creates dissonace and harmony. Thinkin' about it, I suppose I try to listen past the dissonance of the drone to make sense of the other stuff that's goin' on, and like the fires of hell more or less said - when the dissonance resolves into harmony it's like a moment of resolution or creation, somethin' amazing unveiled, like some rule in maths or the planets linin' up or something. Well, you could write a thesis on it's many meanings probably. I don't think anyone owns it like.

Actually this all reminds me of Alan McGee's column in the Grauniad last week, insisting that Queen were punk.
As everyone pointed out to him, the logic of &quot;Punk is cool. I love Queen. Therefore Queen must be punk!&quot; is utter crap.

Indeed I may as well allow John Cleese to take over at this point:

&quot; Good evening. The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a number of logical fallacies; that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms, of the type so often committed by my wife.

'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. 'Oh yes,' one would think. However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition; consequently, she does not understand me, for how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic, if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder?

For example, given the premise, 'all fish live underwater' and 'all mackerel are fish', my wife will conclude, not that 'all mackerel live underwater', but that 'if she buys kippers it will not rain', or that 'trout live in trees', or even that 'I do not love her any more.' This she calls 'using her intuition'. I call it 'crap', and it gets me very irritated because it is not logical. 'There will be no supper tonight,' she will sometimes cry upon my return home. 'Why not?' I will ask. 'Because I have been screwing the milkman all day,' she will say, quite oblivious of the howling error she has made. 'But,' I will wearily point out, 'even given that the activities of screwing the milkman and getting supper are mutually exclusive, now that the screwing is over, surely then, supper may now, logically, be got.' 'You don't love me any more,' she will now often postulate. 'If you did, you would give me one now and again, so that I would not have to rely on that rancid Pakistani for my orgasms.' 'I will give you one after you have got me my supper,' I now usually scream, 'but not before'-- as you understand, making her bang contingent on the arrival of my supper. 'God, you turn me on when you're angry, you ancient brute!' she now mysteriously deduces, forcing her sweetly throbbing tongue down my throat. 'Fuck supper!' I now invariably conclude, throwing logic somewhat joyously to the four winds, and so we thrash about on our milk-stained floor, transported by animal passion, until we sink back, exhausted, onto the cartons of yogurt.

I'm afraid I seem to have strayed somewhat from my original brief. But in a nutshell: sex is more fun than logic-- one cannot prove this, but it 'is' in the same sense that Mount Everest 'is', or that Alma Cogan 'isn't'.